Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wooden bikes

materiabikes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 238 posts

Re: Wooden bikes

#161

Post by grogenaut »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #159
cultus wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gullibility of cyclists is the industry's most valuable asset. In tests, cyclists cannot tell the difference between frame materials when the frame is covered. I think it is just really seductive to think you can get magically faster by a significant amount just by buying a new frame with that new bottom bracket that's claimed to be 30% stiffer.

I think this is oversimplifying how changes in material and aerodynamics can improve performance. A person such as yourself might not be impressed by a “new bottom bracket” with 30% increased stiffness, but someone who races might. Every ounce and second counts.

The problem is like 0.2% of cyclists actually race but it's about 95% of marketing.

Re: Wooden bikes

#162

Post by asdkhadsj »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #159
cultus wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gullibility of cyclists is the industry's most valuable asset. In tests, cyclists cannot tell the difference between frame materials when the frame is covered. I think it is just really seductive to think you can get magically faster by a significant amount just by buying a new frame with that new bottom bracket that's claimed to be 30% stiffer.

I think this is oversimplifying how changes in material and aerodynamics can improve performance. A person such as yourself might not be impressed by a “new bottom bracket” with 30% increased stiffness, but someone who races might. Every ounce and second counts.

Moreover, the example of "In tests, cyclists cannot tell the difference between frame materials when the frame is covered." - who cares?

I probably wouldn't notice the difference between some quality swimming gear vs elite (gold medal quality?) swimming gear either. Running shoes, etc.

Since when does a humans ability to determine minute differences in materials actually matter? Why would we care would opinion the biker has of the material? If it's objectively better, and better is defined by measurable, quantifiable metrics - then what do we care? We're not talking about a wine-snob scenario. Where it's purely subjective opinion based. We're talking about performance characteristics that, when used in competitive scenarios, actually matter.

Now does it objectively matter to some "bike snob" just riding to work? Eh, maybe not. Sure he may make it to work 1m faster due to an objectively better frame, but who cares. Yet, the fact that the bikers use case is subjective does not invalidate more objective use cases for better frames/etc.

Re: Wooden bikes

#163

Post by gameswithgo »

asdkhadsj wrote: post #162
Overtonwindow wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is oversimplifying how changes in material and aerodynamics can improve performance. A person such as yourself might not be impressed by a “new bottom bracket” with 30% increased stiffness, but someone who races might. Every ounce and second counts.

Moreover, the example of "In tests, cyclists cannot tell the difference between frame materials when the frame is covered." - who cares? I probably wouldn't notice the difference between some quality swimming gear vs elite (gold medal quality?) swimming gear either. Running shoes, etc. Since when does a humans ability to determine minute differences in materials actually matter? Why would we care would opinion the bi…

>Since when does a humans ability to determine minute differences in materials actually matter?

when the difference we are talking about is "ride quality" then humans noticing is the only thing that matters. If we were talking about speed, then it wouldn't.

Re: Wooden bikes

#164

Post by moonka »

johnvanommen wrote: post #154
amelius wrote: post #57

I wish someone invented and actually sold tires which can't go flat. I don't mind if it makes the bike somewhat harder to ride. For short-distance trips (intra-city) this should be no problem, and could perhaps even save me a visit to the gym.

I've generally noticed that wider tires make a big difference. For instance, I bought a road bike with 23mm wide tires and it was just unusable, it would get flats every other ride. Over the past 5-10 years there's been a trend towards wider rims, thankfully. Before that, a lot of road bike frames couldn't even FIT a wheel over 25mm wide!

I went from 23mm tires to 32mm, and my first ride I felt like I was floating on clouds. Feels so smooth in comparison.

Re: Wooden bikes

#165

Post by ubermonkey »

H1Supreme wrote: post #133
ubermonkey wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Within the world of go-fast or go-far riding, yeah, they do, with real measurable changes and gains up through probably $6-7.5K USD. For most riders, going above an entry level carbon fiber bike with Shimano 105 components and alloy rims is probably overkill. That price point is between $1500 and $2500US, depending on manufacturer and other options. If you're a larger rider, getting a better grade of carbon frame is…

> For most riders, going above an entry level carbon fiber bike with Shimano 105 components and alloy rims is probably overkill Even the Tiagra line is very good these days. Aside from the 11th cog on the 105's, I'd say that they're pretty even in terms of performance. Especially in regards to shifting.

Really? I'd definitely disagree. I find the 105 materially nicer in feel, plus obviously having the 11 is nice, too.

The maxim in the cycling community where I live is that 105 is fine, but Ultegra is worth it if you can afford it, and Dura Ace is just showing off. I think that's pretty accurate.

(Of course, it probably needs updating for Di2/eTap...)

Re: Wooden bikes

#166

Post by ubermonkey »

cultus wrote: post #129
ubermonkey wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you certain about this? Because I'm not sure it's true based on my own relatively recent experience test-riding a variety of fairly serious road-cycling frames.

I can't find the source at the moment, but there was actually a test done where riders rode bikes of carbon vs. alloy or steel with the frame material obscured from view. They couldn't tell the difference. When everyone is telling you that carbon has a better ride quality, it's hard not to feel it. Steel is the best frame material for 95% of people due to its durability. Quality steel frames (not Schwinn travellers)…

Steel might be nice, and you're right that there exist go-fast weight steel bikes, but it's also hard to find in new bikes at attractive weights & price points. The universe of go-fast road bikes is dominated by aluminum at the low end and carbon above about $1500US.

>custom

Sure, but that's pretty pricey compared to off-the-rack carbon or aluminum.

What was the actual conclusion of the study you remember? That there's no difference? Because that seems like a questionable thing to conclude, and it makes me wonder how they controlled for other factors like frame and bike weight, differences in geometry, etc.

Re: Wooden bikes

#167

Post by mikestew »

cultus wrote: post #125
gameswithgo wrote: post #82

The vibration dampening is a red herring. As a point of comparison, the differences in dampening between various frames/materials is on the order of ~1psi of tire pressure normally. In other words, if you found yourself with the harshest of frames, you could drop air pressure by 1 or 2psi and be at the same level as the "smoothest" frame.

The gullibility of cyclists is the industry's most valuable asset. In tests, cyclists cannot tell the difference between frame materials when the frame is covered. I think it is just really seductive to think you can get magically faster by a significant amount just by buying a new frame with that new bottom bracket that's claimed to be 30% stiffer.

In tests, cyclists cannot tell the difference between frame materials when the frame is covered.

Man, I have a hard time believing that. Now, I've not done a blind taste test, but I truly believe I'll tell the difference between a good carbon frame and an aluminum frame of equal quality. All of the frames in my garage have noticeably different characteristics, and it can't all be placebo. But, I'm an ex-racer, blah, blah, so maybe most people can't tell the difference.

new bottom bracket that's claimed to be 30% stiffer.

OTOH, if a Cat 3 thinks he's putting out enough power to torque a modern bottom bracket, yeah, he's deluding himself.

Re: Wooden bikes

#168

Post by mikestew »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #159
cultus wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gullibility of cyclists is the industry's most valuable asset. In tests, cyclists cannot tell the difference between frame materials when the frame is covered. I think it is just really seductive to think you can get magically faster by a significant amount just by buying a new frame with that new bottom bracket that's claimed to be 30% stiffer.

I think this is oversimplifying how changes in material and aerodynamics can improve performance. A person such as yourself might not be impressed by a “new bottom bracket” with 30% increased stiffness, but someone who races might. Every ounce and second counts.

Every ounce and second counts.

Ex-racer here, and I'll back that statement up. Trick is, which expensive doohickey actually saves a second or an ounce? Or more realistically, since seconds and ounces can actually be measured by a layman, is the bottom bracket actually stiffer? Are you two seconds faster today because of the bottom bracket, or because you're just faster? Was it the smoother shifting of the new chain rings that saved those seconds? Maybe you need a $1000 power meter so you can get the telemetry needed to make sure.

IOW, many thousands have been spent by myself and others to gain only perceived, but not measurable, differences. And, oh how the component marketers know that.

Re: Wooden bikes

#169

Post by Yetanfou »

danburbridge wrote: post #73
Yetanfou wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why call those 23c tyres "cheap"? Why mention price at all? Ride comfort is a function of tyre size, not tyre price. You can buy very "exclusive" expensive 23c tyres, pump them up to 7 atm. and have just as hard a ride as the person who just overtook you on his "cheap" 23c tyres. That "magic carpet" ride does come at a price but it is not monetary: the softer the tyre, the more resistance and with that the slower the…

I am not suggesting that all 23c tyres are cheap, but that tyre quality (which comes at a cost) as well as size has an important part to play in comfort. My 23c handmade FMB tubulars (definitely not cheap) are a much nicer ride than cheaper tyres. Rolling resistance is far more complicated, on anything other than a wooden velodrome, the road surface actually means that there is a sweat-spot in terms of pressure - too…

I don't know how much you ride and in which conditions so I can't comment on the choice of your un-cheap 23c handmade FMB tubulars. What I do know is that those would not last very long for me, handmade magic pixie dust notwithstanding. I ride year-long through the Swedish countryside with temperatures ranging from a maximum of 37°C to -25°C, on roads which vary from reasonable to hard to find on map and landscape. I mostly ride a steel-framed 24-speed with 47-622 knobbly tyres (in other words "fairly fat tyres on 28" rims) at around 5 atm. as those give both speed as well as traction. Microbumps and similar concerns don't apply here, the bike is meant to take me from A to B no matter how many picobumps I encounter. Still I average around 30 km/h on the flat, easily reach 50 km/h downhill.

In other words, I use my bike as I use my motorbike: as a form of transport. Maybe that takes a different approach, maybe not, as said I don't know how you use your bike. What I do know is that I generally don't hold with the 'cultures' which form around specific areas, no matter whether it is biking (silk-walled handmade tyres adapted to your personal preference), audio (audiophile-grade left-turning 99.999999% oxygen-free oriented-strand meteoric copper power cables), food (organic free-range lettuce grown on virgin soil from heritage seeds fertilised with certified manure from Swiss highland cattle) and other such things.

Re: Wooden bikes

#170

Post by ramy_d »

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #155
cultus wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gullibility of cyclists is the industry's most valuable asset. In tests, cyclists cannot tell the difference between frame materials when the frame is covered. I think it is just really seductive to think you can get magically faster by a significant amount just by buying a new frame with that new bottom bracket that's claimed to be 30% stiffer.

There's a blogger called “Bike Snob” who has been ridiculing cyclist gullibility and fleeting trends for over ten years. One manufacturer of wooden bicycles decided to just up and send him one, and… well I'll just quote him: > Before getting the bike: Intrigued by the novelty factor and an excuse to make gratuitous wood puns > Shortly after receiving the bike: Impressed by the exquisite craftsmanship but also kind of…

I found a sequence of updates from the guy if anyone is interested:

https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2017/11/bsnyc-field-trip-20...

https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2017/11/would-that-i-could....

https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2017/11/this-title-is-100-f...

https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2018/06/wood-bike-status-up...

https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2018/01/sawdust-in-wind.htm...

read for yourself

Post reply on HN